But aren't the voice and the ear the very soul of storytelling? After all, there was an oral tradition for thousands of years before writing was ever invented. IMVHO you dig down into the essence of a tale by hearing it read aloud.

I'm finding as I listen to more audiobooks that I like them both pretty much equally. When I have a chance to sit quietly and read for at least 30 minutes, I prefer a book, but with 2 small children, finding quiet time to read is a challenge. Although I probably read about twice as fast as an audiobooks pace, I'm finding I still get more 'reading' done on audio.

In the summer when it's light out later and I can sit outside with a cigar, I do get more time for regular books.

But aren't the voice and the ear the very soul of storytelling? After all, there was an oral tradition for thousands of years before writing was ever invented. IMVHO you dig down into the essence of a tale by hearing it read aloud.

Well put..but he was stating his own personal preference, not debating the original form of telling a story.

Well put..but he was stating his own personal preference, not debating the original form of telling a story.

Oh sure. And as I've discussed previously with other folks, some people take in information easier through the ears, and some people take it in better through the eyes. Nonetheless, I strongly believe that oral storytelling is much more primal.....more evolutionarily and emotionally significant, than reading. Otherwise, humans would have invented writing before speech.

And as others have mentioned, there are also the practical considerations. I can listen to books while I drive, garden, feed the animals, clean the house, exercise, whatever. So in essence I get twice as much good out of my time. When you read, you can't do much of anything else while you're sitting there reading. It seems like a waste.

When you read, you can't do much of anything else while you're sitting there reading. It seems like a waste.

Yes and no. Since I can read twice as fast as I can listen, I actually feel like I'm wasting time if I listen to an audiobook when I can be reading. If I could listen as fast as I could read though, I'd probably never read a book.

Yes and no. Since I can read twice as fast as I can listen, I actually feel like I'm wasting time if I listen to an audiobook when I can be reading.

But since you can always do something else while you're listening, you're never "wasting" that time. It's always being used to some purpose -- listening is just a bonus to that time, no matter how fast or how slow. Nothing is stopping you from reading when you have the luxury of sitting down, and then ALSO listening when you need to be getting other things done.

But since you can always do something else while you're listening, you're never "wasting" that time. It's always being used to some purpose -- listening is just a bonus to that time, no matter how fast or how slow. Nothing is stopping you from reading when you have the luxury of sitting down, and then ALSO listening when you need to be getting other things done.

Oh I agree and that is exactly what I do. I just meant that if I have the time to sit down and do nothing else, and I was just going to sit in a chair for an hour with a book, I would pick reading over listening simply because I can read twice as fast.

Oh I agree and that is exactly what I do. I just meant that if I have the time to sit down and do nothing else, and I was just going to sit in a chair for an hour with a book, I would pick reading over listening simply because I can read twice as fast.

Righto. And I switch between listening and reading, myself. Oddly enough, I usually pick books that I think are going to be BAD books to read -- since I can get through them faster. If I think it's going to be a GOOD book, I usually prefer to listen.

Righto. And I switch between listening and reading, myself. Oddly enough, I usually pick books that I think are going to be BAD books to read -- since I can get through them faster. If I think it's going to be a GOOD book, I usually prefer to listen.

I tend to go for shorter and/or simpler books in audio, and longer and more complex books to read. A 40 hour listen is more daunting than a 20 hour read Also, the accent of the narrator makes a difference to me. I don't have a great attention span, and if I have to focus too hard on the narrator to understand their accent, or if there are too many characters with unfamiliar names, I have much more trouble following the audiobook.

I tend to go for shorter and/or simpler books in audio, and longer and more complex books to read. A 40 hour listen is more daunting than a 20 hour read Also, the accent of the narrator makes a difference to me. I don't have a great attention span, and if I have to focus too hard on the narrator to understand their accent, or if there are too many characters with unfamiliar names, I have much more trouble following the audiobook.

I feel the same, especially when it comes to an epic fantasy series. If I had tried listening to the audiobooks of Malazan or Song of Ice and Fire before reading them I would have had trouble following them because the scope is so huge.

Sort of related to this, I started listening to Dragon's Path by Daniel Abraham and it was confusing for me at first because there was a secondary character in the first chapter named Dossen and a few chapters later there was a POV character named Dawson. When read by the narrator both names sound the same and it was causing so much frustration for me. I had to look at a physical copy of the book to figure out what the hell was going on.

I tend to go for shorter and/or simpler books in audio, and longer and more complex books to read. A 40 hour listen is more daunting than a 20 hour read Also, the accent of the narrator makes a difference to me. I don't have a great attention span, and if I have to focus too hard on the narrator to understand their accent, or if there are too many characters with unfamiliar names, I have much more trouble following the audiobook.

I am the opposite. I really enjoy a long audio book since I have more time to listen than to read due to my reading being limited to weekends in the backyard. Listening, on the other hand, I can do when I drive, walk the dogs and go to the gym.

I subscribe to audible.com where you get 24 books a year (about $10 a book) and I always have to renew a couple of months early (which gets me a 25th book for free).

Oh sure. And as I've discussed previously with other folks, some people take in information easier through the ears, and some people take it in better through the eyes. Nonetheless, I strongly believe that oral storytelling is much more primal.....more evolutionarily and emotionally significant, than reading. Otherwise, humans would have invented writing before speech.

lol okay...just so long as you're not under the impression that it being more 'primal' makes your tastes more 'correct' or something

No, I just think that speaking/hearing is obviously more ingrained...more basic....more fundamental....to humanity and communication than reading/writing are.

Or look at it from another perspective -- there are many many illiterate people in the world, and for the most part they function well enough through their verbal communication -- but there are very very few mutes.

also i'm pretty sure murals and paintings were around before speech. so that's the an even more primal form of storytelling. but i could be wrong.

Oh hell no. Vocal communication has been around for literally millions of years -- chimps, dogs, birds, rats, whatever, they all communicate through vocalization and hearing. The very earliest ancestors of humans were already communicating vocally, before anyone ever thought of putting pigment on walls.